The companies that are beginning to market this are focused on removing diseases that spring from a single gene, then reducing the likelihood of some other clearly bad diseases. They won't get so much opposition there (seeing that Iceland and Denmark have both eliminated Down's Syndrome via abortion, we can project that less-invasive and violent procedures will be readily accepted). There will be the added benefit that the latter fairly often not only does not have tradeoffs, but sometimes confers additional health benefits in other areas. It is improved general genetic health. We will begin learning about some tradeoffs, but will do that learning in the context of clearly improved health, so we won't feel so bad. Except for the occasional disaster, of course.
We are very close to being able to do these things already.
Next up will be cognitive enhancement and attractiveness. No one is marketing this yet, and this one currently scares people, so it waits in the wings. But it is looking possible already, and as with the improvement of specific health outcomes quietly increasing general health, so too will attractiveness and cognition go hand-in-hand, as greater symmetry and general health will matter more than riskier strategies like larger breasts or thicker hair. I believe those dominoes will fall. Those children, even if they are not many, will outcompete the others, and we will sort of notice that this means more males and females will fall out the bottom of the attractiveness market, so the enhancements to some will be something of a violence to some, but not all of the others. I suppose they also harm the chances of success of even the people just behind them in status positions. But we will have swallowed this.
It is exactly what evolution has already been doing for years, of course, just much faster and more intentionally. Mate selection and survival fitness. Evolution creates losers far more than capitalism or Western Civ or whatever.
But then after that will be the personality characteristics. We don't know which ones will become available first. We look to genetics to remove the worst excesses first, of course, like psychopaths and high aggression...
...except that CEOs and other leaders score higher than average on both of those, and most of it is spectrum rather than individual genes. It sounds terrible that the family down the street could select for all eight children having higher-than-average aggressiveness. But if we overselect for nice, nonviolent, trusting, warm fuzzy people, that sounds like a very nice society to live in - and pretty easy for unscrupulous people to control, not just at the governmental or corridors of power level, but just easy pickings for neighborhood bullies, including emotional bullies, cognitive bullies, and social bullies. No fists required.
It is hard not to occasionally think of the Butlerian Jihad.
8 comments:
If I'm running things, I want everybody else's kids to be peaceful and cooperative, and I want mine to be aggressive go-getters like me. Although that could get a bit unpleasant for me when they grow up.
Lewis' Conditioner/morlocks would seem likely to quarrel among themselves...
My concern with genetic enhancement is that it could or might lead to a homogenized and pasteurized population. I like that for milk, but...
With respect, I think your fears are off the mark.
As far as I can tell, normal people are most likely to meet each other, marry, and provide the next generation. That is, normal = at the peak of the normal curve of the distribution of traits. I have begun reading obituaries as life lessons. On a Darwinian level, the postal clerk with 3 children and 12 grandchildren has defeated the corporate executive with a sad PhD child and no grandchildren. Hands down.
So far, intelligence is looking like a trait that is the product of many, many genes, all with small effects. Often overlooked in these discussions is that many genes (likely most) effect multiple systems. And it's quite likely that increasing the effect of one gene will create further effects in the network of other genes' influences.
Already, I can think of a number of highly intelligent and successful families who have children with difficult conditions, such as autism or sensory issues. I don't think that's just chance. For example, if your hearing were more acute, it could be very distracting. What if you had more sensory neurons, but they were mostly in your gut? Digestion would also be distracting.
We see the terrible conditions caused when recessives combine when it's something like cystic fibrosis. I suspect there are other conditions that are harder to diagnose because their effects are more subtle.
Intelligent people need intelligent parents. Nurture is very important. I know that there are people who believe that intelligence is the most important quality to have, but they tend to have been sheltered in highly selected environments, such as good school districts, selective colleges, and institutions with highly educated employees. There's the survival effect of forgetting about the intelligent classmate who was obsessed with inappropriate things, or the classmate who couldn't master social cues.
It is exactly what evolution has already been doing for years, of course, just much faster and more intentionally. Mate selection and survival fitness. Evolution creates losers far more than capitalism or Western Civ or whatever.
But, winning in evolutionary terms does not mean fancy toys and being able to hang out with fancy people. It means increasing the share of your set of genes in the next generations. It's also a response to environmental factors. In terms of evolution, I think there will be unexpected effects.
For example, I think there's evolutionary selection going on right now, which no one notices. All the attractive, smart people controlling their reproduction until the right time. Hmm. Look at this: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/351-400/db388-fig2.png
Only 10% of women currently able to conceive are not using some form of birth control, when you include things like condoms and male sterilization. That means pregnancy is voluntary. Which means that all the mental traits which increase the ability and desire to decrease fertility are being selected against. Foresight. Self-control. Organization. Professional advancement. The chances of abnormalities increase with parental age, as well.
As to attractiveness, women have been engaging in a no-holds barred competition on that front for, well, forever. But oddly, the winners in such a competition are best off growing old with one suitable mate. "Outcompeting" is a losing game for women--having children from many different fathers is not seen as an advantage at present.
Forwarding that link to a chat I am in. Your take on what selection is occurring under the radar looks very likely. Also, I was just listening to Razib interview Jonathan Anomaly and reminding him that religious people tend to have more children as well. In Judaism this is quite pronounced, as secular Jews have a below-average number of children.
Perhaps height is a good way to illustrate my point. If you were a little taller than everyone else, it could be an advantage, and indeed, there are figures in history whose nicknames indicate they were tall, ie Charlemagne (son of Pepin the Short.) However, if you were 8 feet tall, you'd be unhealthy and unable to fly commercial. If you were female, it would be very difficult to find a mate, as tall women already say it's a challenge to find a match.
Likewise, intelligence is a balancing act. We can identify some obvious negative single-gene disorders. We know that education can make a huge difference in human performance. We don't know the network effects of hundreds of genes on particular expressed characteristics. I am very wary of the hubris of thinking we know enough to tinker with the deepest structures of human consciousness.
I don't think we are up to the moral task of determining our descendants' characteristics. Aggressive people are frequently unsuccessful, because other people can't stand them. Successful aggressive people don't experience that--and who will have the guts to tell Mega CEO he isn't the image of human perfection? Very successful people often surround themselves with yes men (yes people?)
It is probably in the public's interest to prohibit meddling with human potential. Not because I fear the creation of a genetic overclass. No, I fear that the people who are inclined to do such things to their own children are much more likely to wipe out their own family lines. Attempting to edit children is tantamount to unbridled human experiment.
...(seeing that Iceland and Denmark have both eliminated Down's Syndrome via abortion, we can project that less-invasive and violent procedures will be readily accepted)...
I believe this is incorrect. Abortion is seen as a positive good in some circles. These same people attack gene editing to make, for example, golden rice, from a simple gene edit that could greatly reduce blindness in poor countries. More death, and more suffering in the living, appears to be a goal.
I think this reconciles when we see that this is about improved lives for the few, and we don't give a damn about the others. It is the default setting of mankind, which some people and even whole groups rise above for brief periods.
Post a Comment